S
sidbrown
Guest
So it is not one on this issue:
In the west: yes
In the east: no.
If the Church were one, then would it not have one creed for both the east and west?
- Status
In the west: yes
In the east: no.
If the Church were one, then would it not have one creed for both the east and west?
A
Aramis
Guest
The teaching behind the Filioque is universal.
The expression of that in many East-European languages, by accretion of an “and the son” equivalent, however, is heresy because the term used for the procession of the Spirit means the origination. Even in the Roman Rite, the greek for the creed does not reference precession, but origination.
Further, the church has never used JUST one creed. The Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Roman Credo have all been used in the Catholic Church, as well as translations of all the above, plus the profession of St. Basil and the profession of St. John Chrysostom… and a dozen+ other odd statements of faith.
Of course, if one were to be truly obnoxious, one points out that the Nicene Creed hasn’t been used for a milenia, only the variation modified by the Council of Constantinople, and the Roman Credo, a variation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan.
S
sidbrown
Guest
I don;t see how it can be a question of alnguage, if English is used in both rites.
In the EF and the OF, in English, the filioque is said.
In the Ruthenian and other Eastern Churches, in English, the filioque is omitted.
So there is a big difference here as to whether or not to say the filioque in English in the creed at Mass. So the Church is really not one on this point.
A
Aramis
Guest
The English is a translation, in both cases. In the Roman mass, of the Roman Credo, NOT the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. It’s a different but complementary creed.
In the Roman Rite, the liturgy is written in Latin. In latin, the filioque is not heretical. Therefore, when translated into languages where the same type of construction is non-heretical, it is used for the Roman Mass. When translated into Greek, however, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed is substituted for a literal translation of the Roman Credo.
In the Byzantine Rite, however, the reference liturgy is done in one of four languages: Greek, Slavonic, Aramaic, or Arabic. In all of these, the Greek is the origin; in Greek and Slavonic, the term used for the procession implies origin, not mere transmission; therefore, the english translations of these liturgies must be faithful to source. And that source always uses the best fit of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
For a while, however, the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches used a latin reference for translation, the Ordo… and it used the Roman Credo. Therefore the English used the credo translation, not the N-C Creed Translation.
Rome never abolished the use of the N-C Creed; the Credo is, technically, a different Creed, even tho it originates in a translation of the N-C Creed. It teaches Truth, but a slightly different part of that truth.
In the same manner, the Apostle’s Creed and the Baptismal Promises teach the same faith in different wordings, which again, must be carefully translated. For if not, misunderstandings occur.
T
Theoferrum
Guest
I believe, as I stated above, that the Saints who have displayed Incorruptibility upon death proves that all three groups - Catholic, Orthodox and Orientals - comprise the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is what this thread is all about.
Let me explain something to you all from the point of view of someone whose first introduction to the Catholic Church was in the Byzantine Church.
When I was going through my catecumin classes I researched much of the information on my own reading books by Atwater and the entire Catechism. After it was proven to me that the doctrine of the real presense in the Eucharist was true and Apostolic, I decided to convert but thought I was going to have a lot of problems with some doctrines that Baptists had problems with so what I did was to light a candle to an appropriate saint when I got to any particular doctrine.
For Instance, with Ex Cathedra I lit a candle to St Peter, with Mariology to Mary, with the Eucharist to St John etc., and I feel that each one helped me to understand the doctrine and actually showed me supporting verses.
Now, since I have been researching the Orthodox and Oriental’s Doctrinal Positions, I have found only four main differences of opinion, theologically, between the Catholics and the Orthodox and I have verses from the Bible that can be used to support either position.
Lets looks at Ex Cathedra. Pete showed me a Case Law example of Ex Cathedra in the Scriptures when Caiaphas made the statement that it was necessary for one man to die for the nation. Though he meant it differently, the point is that the Holy Spirit stepped in and made sure he said the exact truth and then had John interpret it correctly for us. He was dressed up and functioning as the High Priest speaking from the Seat of Moses when he made that statement and it is, for all practicle purposes, a statement made Ex Cathedra and, therefore, if the Holy Spirit could use an unsaved corrupt Priest with murder in his heart to make an infallible statement, he could certainly use the Pope to do the same thing.
Now, the Orthodox have a problem with this however, they believe in the Infallibility of their particular Councils - precided over by the “First among Equals” - which, then, is basically the same thing as Ex Cathedra (and the Catholic Magisterium) and, therefore, they are basically seeing two sides of the exact same coin and, therefore, there is no real difference and they are both part of the one True Church. The exact same thing is the case for Mariology and when I have time I am sure you will all be interested in the supporting verses that Mary gave me for the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
Point is there is really no major difference between these three groups and they are all seeing different theological sides of the exact same doctrinal coin (a coin actually has three sides visible) that they all uphold and have for two thousand years.
And, I might add, if there is ever to be reconciliation between these three Apostolic Churches, they will have to walk down the exact same Doctrinal Road that I am discribing to you all right on this thread.
S
StRaphael
Guest
Don’t assign too much weight to incorruptibility. It is not a be-all end-all indicator of sanctity, there are different degrees of incorruptibility (e.g., John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco †1966] is brown and withered, whereas Bl. Imelda Lambertini †1333] has full, lifelike flesh and normal coloration), and rigorous investigation is required to determine whether the causes are supernatural in individual cases. Remember the following:
, 423, 430, 468-469, 570b, 714].StRaphael said:
(2) Some people who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Catholic Church and do not enter into visible communion with her during their lifetime can be saved if they at least implicitly desire baptism, sincerely seek truth, do the will of God to the best of their ability, are in good faith, and have perfect charity [Denzinger catecheticsonline.com - ]1647-1648, 1677-1678].
According to the 2003 New Catholic Encyclopedia 9:669-670, while God sometimes works miracles outside of the Catholic Church to manifest His presence in certain events, support a doctrine that separated Churches have retained from the Catholic Church, or to increase the faith of individuals, He never works miracles in circumstances that could, with good reason, be construed as confirming a non-Catholic “religion as a whole or … a doctrine” opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Athanasius of Brest-Litovsk (†1648), whom Catholics murdered for his obstinate, lifelong opposition to the reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, “saw the complete affirmation of Orthodoxy and the final and total undoing of the Unia as his single goal. He dedicated his whole life to this end.” And yet his relics were said to be incorrupt (OCA webpage). The relics of Isidore of Estonia, killed in 1472 because of his refusal to become Catholic, were said to be incorrupt (note that his relics were frozen in ice for the winter season), according to his OCA entry. The bloodthirstiness of the killers of these men is abominable, but it is clear that the “incorrupt” Athanasius and Isidore are by no means to be held as models of conduct for Catholics, and that they were also in the wrong (see point one in the above explanation of “no salvation outside the Church;” these men were not invincibly ignorant). I’m sorry to be so harsh, but I’m only trying to dispel the type of Kum bay ya mentality that loyal sons of the one and only Church and enemies of the one and only Church of Christ are both models of sanctity.
God bless you and yours!
T
Theoferrum
Guest
Why, may I ask, did I exist in a Protestant Environment for 44 years and never once heard the subject of the incorruptibility of the saints mentioned?
** In other words, there are no incorruptible saints recorded among the Protestants**.
So, why is that? Simple. Only one person was incorruptible and that is the Lord Y’shua Messiah and it was specifcally prophesied of him in the Psalm and this was not so much because He was sinless, but because He is Divine. Therefore, if a Saint manifests incorruptibility upon death, it is because he has been a “partaker of the Divine Nature” via the Eucharsist because Transubstantiation is occuring via Apostolic Authority in the Liturgy - and you say not to be much weight on it?
Why, then, have the Saints (who were familiar with dead bodies of all kinds and knew a special case when they saw it) of the Church been venerating these Incorruptibles - from all three Apostolic Denominations - for 2000 years starting with Barnabus who was reported to be Incorruptible 100 years after his death?
Thus, as stated, though you may discard this Divine Testimony, those Apostolic Denominations that manifest the Impossibility of Incorruptibility are, therefore, part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - which addresses the rest of your comment which was, actually, contradictory to begin with (i.e. you have to be Catholic but, if not, then as long as you wanta be baptised you’re ok - you know, that Kum bi ya mentality).
This conclusion is then supported by the rest of the information in this post where the Scriptures describe for us a Two Fold Denominational aspect of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as well as informing us that this also exists in the form of a Seven Fold Church.
Do the Math and Figure it out…
S
StRaphael
Guest
Why are most of the saints not incorruptible? Catholics don’t venerate people just because they are incorruptible (and supernatural incorruptibility is not pronounced without diligent investigation), but also on account of other miracles and indicators of sanctity. On the other hand, according to p. 306 of the Jesuit Fr. Louis Monden’s Signs and Wonders, “pre-canonization inquests in the Orthodox Church are very different from their Roman counterparts. Examination of the bodily remains is of primary importance; perfect preservation is a favorable and often conclusive factor warranting canonization. … the norms applied in these inquests concerning miraculous events are not the same as the strict rules applied by the Catholic Church, and thus no purported miraculous facts may be accepted as such without prudent critical investigation in every case.” The Russian Orthodox Church censured Evgeni Evstigneevich Golubinski when he said that incorruptibility is not an essential mark of sanctity, according to p. 457 of the Assumptionist Fr. Martin Jugie’s Le Schisme Byzantin.
And how is it that, for instance, men like St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori (an example of a loyal son of the Catholic Church, obedient to the Holy See as is required for salvation for everyone who is not invincibly ignorant–see the words of Pope St. Pius X below) and the “incorrupt” Athanasius of Brest could both be members of the Church? Can a formal schismatic be a saint, with alleged incorruptibility manifesting that he was right to persist in notorious formal schism until the end of his life?
I was just reporting what the Magisterium has said about “No Salvation Outside the Church,” according to dogmatic and other authoritative statements collected in Denzinger. You thus have accused the Magisterium of contradicting itself regarding “No Salvation Outside the Church.” Pope St. Pius X, according to your logic, contradicts himself when he says the following in his Catechism, which corresponds the formulation of (1) and (2) that I posted above:
"12 Q: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?
A: No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.
27 Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation."
God bless you and yours!
T
Theoferrum
Guest
Why do most saints not speak in tongues?
Exactly the point - the saints that are venerated in reference to their incorruptibility have passed the test and there are some in each of the three Apostolic Denominations.
Was Paul a schismatic when he confronted Peter, or was Peter a schismatic when he left the table where the Gentile Christians were eating? Kinda of moot point since they both died for their faith, ain’t it.
No, I accused you - Mr. Kume bye ya - of being contradictory which I guess, according to you is the same as being “inviciably ignorant” - “the same judgment you judge others with, you are guilty of yourself.”
***Cause what’s in a person’s heart, soon comes out of their mouth… ***
S
StRaphael
Guest
Which ones from each “denomination” have passed the test? Are they apples-to-apples cases in terms of the degree of incorruptibility? Are their relics on display for all to see?
It should be manifest to all readers that you have not engaged my points about the importance of incorruptibility, the implications of schism, and the consistency of magisterial teachings, but have instead replied with irrelevant comparisons (Sts. Peter and Paul) and other things of little substance. I wish to avoid “meaningless talk” in accordance with the precept of the glorious martyr St. Paul the Apostle 1 Tim 1:6], so I’m bowing out of the discussion for now, as it is not headed anywhere good. May God bless you and yours with health, holiness, and happiness. Pray for me, a sinner.
T
Theoferrum
Guest
***The Incorruptibles :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility***
Ah, actually, it is probably pretty obvious to everyone that - as the Catechism states - the Church is made up of sinners who make mistakes and, therefore, not even Peter or Paul would meet your criteria for sainthood.
Get it?
Further, I notice you didn’t quote the Catholic Catechism or what it says about those of the Orthodox and Oriental Faiths however, I suspect they would fit the criteria in the quote you provided about “wanting to be baptised” or something to that effect.
And, you are the one ignoring the Incorruptibles, not myself.
And, you just judged yourself again.
Oh yeah, one more question.
Why aren’t you using the most recent catechism in you argument, may I ask?
T
Theoferrum
Guest
I think you will find this thread in 'harmony and unity" not only with the Catholic Catechism, regardless of what some say, but also with the body of believers in the three Apostolic Denominations of the Church which is the goal of this thread.
***The Catholic Catechism :
817** In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism 270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes.
Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and **the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers **. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm*
***The Catholic Catechism :
817** In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism 270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes.
Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and **the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers **. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm*
A
Aunt_Raven
Guest
Early Church Fathers identified the two olive branches as “Henoch and Elias” or “Enoch and Elijah”. The reason for this is that Enoch and Elijah are the two Old Testament saints who were assumed into Heaven prior to death. Their future death will be a martyrdom at the hand of the eschatological Antichrist. 
Henoch (or Enoch) walked the earth long before God chose Abraham to be the father of the nation of Israel (old covenant) and spiritually the father of the Church (new covenant). Enoch was a just man (not an idolator) in the early days of Genesis (before Noah) who pleased God, and “was taken up” and not seen again; Enoch the righteous gentile will in the days of the Anti-christ witness to those who never heard the gospel; but who in their hearts know the natural law, and are required by their conscience to obey it. It is fitting that those pagans or of no religion have a non-jewish prophet who can speak to them in terms of obeying God’s natural law. :getholy:
To those who have heard the revealed word of God (those of the Abrahamic covenant, old and new) will be sent the greatest of the Jewish prophets: Elijah, who was taken up to heaven in a firey chariot (see book of Kings) – He will witness to the unconverted Jews in the time of Tribulation to reject the Anti-christ, who will by trickery convince most of the nation of Israel that he is the true messiah. :tsktsk:
The Apocalypse says that after their three-year witnessing ministry, the Anti-christ will cruelly martyr both Henoch and Elijah, and cause their bodies to lay in the streets of Jerusalem for three days while he and his sleazy friends and toadies celebrate and feast. But after 3 days, God will raise them from the dead (vindicating their message) and bring them up to Heaven. The Antichrist will not be pleased !
--but not to worry, he will soon be toast.
The identity of the two olive branches is confirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa theologiae:
" . . . Elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven, but not in to the empyrean heaven, which is the abode of the saints: and likewise Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise, where he is believed to live with Elias until the coming of Antichrist. (Summa theologiae III, q. 49, a. 5)
That’s what St. Thomas Aquinas, a Roman Catholic Doctor of the Church taught. If you are an Eastern rite Catholic or Orthodox Christian, it’s what St. Augustine taught-- so both East and West positively identified these “two olive branches” long ago.
Henoch (or Enoch) walked the earth long before God chose Abraham to be the father of the nation of Israel (old covenant) and spiritually the father of the Church (new covenant). Enoch was a just man (not an idolator) in the early days of Genesis (before Noah) who pleased God, and “was taken up” and not seen again; Enoch the righteous gentile will in the days of the Anti-christ witness to those who never heard the gospel; but who in their hearts know the natural law, and are required by their conscience to obey it. It is fitting that those pagans or of no religion have a non-jewish prophet who can speak to them in terms of obeying God’s natural law. :getholy:
To those who have heard the revealed word of God (those of the Abrahamic covenant, old and new) will be sent the greatest of the Jewish prophets: Elijah, who was taken up to heaven in a firey chariot (see book of Kings) – He will witness to the unconverted Jews in the time of Tribulation to reject the Anti-christ, who will by trickery convince most of the nation of Israel that he is the true messiah. :tsktsk:
The Apocalypse says that after their three-year witnessing ministry, the Anti-christ will cruelly martyr both Henoch and Elijah, and cause their bodies to lay in the streets of Jerusalem for three days while he and his sleazy friends and toadies celebrate and feast. But after 3 days, God will raise them from the dead (vindicating their message) and bring them up to Heaven. The Antichrist will not be pleased !
--but not to worry, he will soon be toast.The identity of the two olive branches is confirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa theologiae:
" . . . Elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven, but not in to the empyrean heaven, which is the abode of the saints: and likewise Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise, where he is believed to live with Elias until the coming of Antichrist. (Summa theologiae III, q. 49, a. 5)
That’s what St. Thomas Aquinas, a Roman Catholic Doctor of the Church taught. If you are an Eastern rite Catholic or Orthodox Christian, it’s what St. Augustine taught-- so both East and West positively identified these “two olive branches” long ago.
- Status